And he surely would have wanted to be part of the very lively debate on the Referendum Amendment Bill, which was brought back for its second and third readings. At least 10 members on the PUP bench stood up to oppose it. As we've reported, the bill seeks to lower the threshold for the passage of referendum to a simple majority: 50% + 1.
The UDP had set the threshold at 60%, but in a gesture of goodwill to the international community, the new law lowers it to 50% to bring it in line with Guatemala's. That paves the way for referendums in both countries on whether the Belize - Guatemala Territorial Dispute should go to the ICJ.
The PUP calls it the appeasement of an unfriendly neighbor:...
Hon. John Briceno, Leader of the Opposition
"Now we all know why UDP government is proposing this amendment. They are actually under a lot of pressure from Guatemala to change the law to a simple majority so that both countries can hold their referendum over Guatemala's unfounded claim over Belize so that they can take it to the international court of justice. Let me make a few points on the issue of Guatemala. Why are we appeasing Guatemala at this time? All the indications are that Guatemala will hold no referendum. They are asking the international community about 50 million US dollars so that they can hold their referendum and all indications are that they are not going to get that 50 million dollars."
Rt. Hon, Said Musa
"How can we possibly talk about amending and facilitating the process of going towards a referendum when all we've been faced with is hostility from the Guatemalans. All we've been faced with it is we've stand a very good chance the way things are right now and the incompetent way it has been handled in the ministry of foreign affairs. We stand much clearly the possibility of losing the Sarstoon to the Guatemalans. This is what is happening."
Hon. Oscar Requena
"But I can tell you that this is the cry of the people that I represent that this government particularly under the leadership of the minister of foreign affairs has failed in carrying out a comprehensive education program to educate our people on what are the pros and cons of going to the ICJ. Now I heard him mention earlier in reference to the referendum, saying that we are now making the amendment where we want to move the threshold from 60% to a simple majority. Once we get this pass then we are going to move the education process. Madam Speaker they should not get off the hook, they have had 8 years of being in government. so don't come with any excuse that at the last minute you are now going to blame that we need to pass this first before we begin that education process."
Hon. Cordel Hyde
"I find it amazing that for the very house meeting in this year a special sitting, mind you, this is the primary thing on the agenda. This removal of the threshold in the referendum act, this kissing up to Guatemala, this clearing of the road to go to the ICJ. There's no guarantee that we'll go to the ICJ and get a favorable ruling that they will respect and abide by the ruling. There is no guarantee that if they get a favorable ruling that it will be satisfactory to them, or enough for them. There are no guarantees, so don't pretend as if though they are guarantees, as if though this is the end all and if we're going to have a permanent solution. Don't try to sell us that, because nobody on this side of the house is buying that."
Rt. Hon. Dean Barrow
"Please may I disabuse you of the notion that passage of these amendments are so as to hasten the process of trying to hold a referendum. absolutely not. Again, speaking for myself, since there was this decoupling from the provision in the compromise that require the 2 countries to hold the referendum simultaneously. As far as I am concerned we aren't holding any referendum until they hold theirs. I have my reservations although I wish it would be otherwise as to whether the people of this country will vote yes in a referendum and if the Guatemalans in fact trick us into our going first and we say no. They will then have the moral high ground. It will be the easiest thing for their people to then hold the referendum and say yes so that Belize can appear to be the bad guys. So if it is up to me and I hope we can agree on that, we do not go first. I don't care what any international community says, I don't care who urges a different course of action. Let them go first, it was fine when it was to be done simultaneously. They asked for that change because according to them the inability of them holding it except on the same date as a presidential election, okay that's been given to them, but you go first Guatemala, no way we will go before them as far as I am concerned."
"I am not sure where the motion comes from that the referendum with respect to going to the ICJ would, if it takes place, when this government is an office not be considered binding. I don't care how you try to interpret the language in the act. The international agreement, all that we have said and done ratified by the senate makes clear that you do not go to the ICJ except the people of Belize agree that you go by the referendum. No ifs, maybes, ands or buts where that is concerned. We all absolutely agree you cannot go to the ICJ except the majority of the people of this country so determine in a referendum."
At the end of the two hour debate, the Opposition Leader called for a division and there were 16 from the government side in favour of the bill, and 9 on the PUP side opposed to it with 5 absences and one suspended.
Email
Print